From a Melbourne rail professional who some say, has too much time on his hands, selected news and commentary to help preserve our enduring institutions and values, advance economic liberalism, social conservatism and other, sundry matters ... Online since 1999 ...

Friday, November 25, 2011

My employer made news earlier in the year for all the wrong reasons. The headlines were damning, not only for Metro and its CEO Andrew Lezala, but also for the State Government because, try as it might, it can never divorce itself from Melbourne’s railways. More specifically, The Hon Terry Mulder will be committing political suicide if strategy resorts to merely accepting that Metro and train unions will sort things out. After all, the Transport Ministers job is well defined:

As Minister for Public Transport, Mr Mulder oversees the effective delivery and management of Victoria's public transport services.

Recall former Minister of Transport Lynne Kosky's greatest mistake was to think that Connex would sort its own, well, the rest is history.

When MTR successfully bid to run Melbourne's trains in 2009, it understandably used its overseas record of accomplishment as inspiration for rebuilding Melbourne’s system, but has it gone right yet?

Essentially, it is nothing new, Victorian political culture, old guard bureaucracy, and above all, the … (I dare not write it) have all but guaranteed that Metro will struggle to implement the change it seeks to improve our metropolitan train system.

I suspect that past events covered in the media about slow drivers may escalate further before resulting in a “band aid” fix of sorts; hence, the underlying or root cause of Metro’s problems will remain; hindrances that have little to do with infrastructure, timetable and train maintenance issues.

This article revealed the core problems of our metropolitan train services. It would be a brave person, be it the CEO, a politician or uncommon bureaucrat that attempts to tackle such issues directly, nonetheless it can be done.

Given the Hong Kong-based consortium's successful overseas record, if MTR cannot provide Melbournians with a better metropolitan rail network, then it is accurate to suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with our system but more concerning, is that it appears nobody is willing, or able to address it.

I hasten to add, why might I have linked this blog entry to the collectivism, individualism and more significantly the ___________ labels?

UPDATE

Is Metro trying to compromise passenger safety by relaxing safety rules pertaining to the running of trains? On the bases of another recent article in The Age, one would think so.

Take the poll question that accompanies the article: Would you feel safe travelling on trains if Metro changed the fault-reporting criteria? Now let’s be clear, this question is calculating and represents a form of classic cognitive favouritism known as response bias due to the wording of the question. That's why it is hardly extraordinary that a question which reads, “Would you feel safe travelling on trains if Metro changed the fault-reporting criteria?” would yield the response it has, as 59% answered no compared to 41% with a yes.

So is Metro trains Melbourne really attempting to relax safety standards in a manner that compromises passenger safety? The straightforward answer is no, more accurately, Metro is engaging in common sense risk management designed to raise the operating efficiency of our metropolitan rail network.

Should senior managers at Metro be made to feel culpable for seeking greater efficiency? The piece seems to suggest that they should and this is wrong. The 4 faults cited as examples, while not minor would hardly be tantamount to “critical” in terms of train running.

The articles author, Clay Lucas, would be advised to interview Metro and seek their logic for the proposed changes to existing fault reporting systems. Or otherwise, the latter should put out its own press release detailing their argument.

On present course, Metro is losing the PR battle and needless to add, its spokespeople need to up the ante.

Up the ante you ask? Yes, take for example an email I received not so long ago from Aliyah Stotyn, who is unknown to me but apparently claims to understand me. He wrote:

The focus of my article is basically an exposé on Andrew Lezala's false accusations on train drivers, so I'm trying to get information on other things MTM are doing like tracking drivers work phones whilst on sick leave, and anything else I can find.

I stumbled across your blog and I was wondering if it would be possible to meet up for a chat when you're free?

I understand that drivers are bound by Metro's contract not to speak to the media regarding Metro matters, so if you prefer you can remain totally anonymous.

My interest is only in having the drivers' voices heard so that the public aren't brainwashed by Metro's accusations.

Even if you prefer not to meet, an email interview would be fine too.

Let me know A.S.A.P.

Cheers,
Aliyah S.

You will agree that the email was not exactly partisan to the interests of senior Metro Trains Management. Needless to add, my being bound to my companies directions prevented me from replying to the email, even though I would have had much to say. The line, "My interest is only in having the drivers' voices heard so that the public aren't brainwashed by Metro's accusations" is telling, and indicates that the author has concluded that Metro is the enemy.

This is clearly representative of the challenge facing Metro's media liaison team.

About Me

Generally, I'm known to most nearly all as Otto, my everyday designation, though my birth name is Ottavio. In addition to what I have stated in "about blog", I am partial to free market driven economies, free trade principles and the freedom for individuals to structure their own lives without Government interference. I would staunchly advocate that the "individual" is greater than any collective. I am socially conservative and support traditional morality and social structure. I champion fiscally conservative Governments - economic liberalism. However, not the subject of this blog, I also campaign for the continuance and preservation of global American dominance. I enjoy writing about that which interests me; I do so to impart knowledge and understanding, and to put both an individual spin and my own distinctive sensibility and perception on my chosen subject matter.

About blog

This blog both embraces and advocates a, pro-small government and, pro-free market approach to Australian public policy and the views. It rejects the contemporary notion that government is all-powerful, and that it can solve all our problems. It rejects the nanny state, excessive government interference in our lives, more taxes, more regulation and more public spending. It rejects the present Australian (Labor-Agrarian-Socialist-Independent) government coupled with its pompous dependency on the economically shallow Greens. It embraces a political philosophy, social and educational regime and/or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to change, for changes sake to the established order. A view that recognises and defends the connection existing between members of an ethnic group based on shared ancestry, culture, religion, history and language. A view that questions political correctness. A view that recognises and defends our masculine identity as men or feminine identity as women, our role as fathers and mothers or husbands and wives within a traditional family based on a heterosexual union. A view that recognises and defends marital love and paternal & maternal love.

Guest Posting

The L Party is an evolving project, a work in progress with the aim of establishing a dedicated and broad base. To this end, I reach out to anyone interested, be it readers, journalists, academics or just interested folk thinking about contributing on a regular or, even one off basis as a guest poster. No blog can reach full potential without the participation of others. Submit a request to write via the email address mail on my profile page.

Disclaimer

The information and data contained in this blog has been collected, validated and expressed with due skill and attention and is provided as general information to promote a cause important to the author. No representations or warranties of any kind are made, express or implied about the completeness, accuracy or reliability of its contents or information, products and services or related graphics contained within it.

Any reliance placed on such information is therefore at own risk. In no event will the author we be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of or in connection with the use of this blog.

Through this blog you are able to link to other websites which are not under the control of the author nor has the author have any control over the nature, content and availability of those sites. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.

Every effort is made to keep the blog up and running smoothly. However, the author takes no responsibility for and will not be liable for the blog being temporarily unavailable due to technical issues beyond the author’s control.

For the purpose of this disclaimer the term's, "the author", and/or "Ottavio Marasco" and/or "Otto Marasco" are one and the same.

If the provision of any of the information contained in this disclaimer is unenforceable or illegal for any reason then the remaining information will remain in full force and effect notwithstanding that invalidity or unenforceability.

This is a free speech zone

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
These words were first used by Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G. Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906). They were not a quote, but a paraphrase of Voltaire's attitudes, based on his Essay on Tolerance where he asserts: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too".
Its ultimate origin may lie in a letter to M. le Riche (February 6, 1770): "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Source